1. The defendants receive each of the money stated in the separate sheet of compensation amount from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the land of this case in proportion to each of the entries in the column for the share in the compensation amount in the attached Form, in Yongcheon-si E-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land is similar to the three-dimensionals, and only the side of which width is narrow is adjacent to the packaging road of about 18 meters wide.

C. On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a written complaint demanding the auction division of the instant land. As to the Defendants, Defendant B, against the auction division as of April 16, 2019, submitted a written answer to the purport that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to purchase the shares of other co-owners or sell the instant land together with the sales price to divide the sales price according to the shares.

Defendant B and C present on May 30, 2019, at the first date for pleading, stated to the effect that if they receive a reasonable amount of money, they would transfer their shares to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s legal representative made a statement to the effect that they would be able to purchase each share from the Defendants by paying an amount equivalent to the market price to the Plaintiff.

Defendant D received the instant complaint on December 11, 2018, but did not submit any document and did not appear on the date of pleading. Ultimately, until the date of closing argument in the instant case, there was no agreement on the division of the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

E. As of June 26, 2019, the market price of the instant land is KRW 189,030,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 3 evidence, the result of the commission of appraisal to the F Daegubuk Branch Co., Ltd. by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the plaintiff and the defendants sharing the land of this case did not reach an agreement on the method of partition of the land of this case, which is public property, until the closing date of arguments in this case. Thus, one of co-owners is remaining.